they could do anything. And heck look at the payoff, they spend the publics money to lobby themselves into thinking invading Syria would be a good thing, and Poof :nuke:............we are invading Syria
I think it will a fool thing, but that kind of thing has not stopped them yet :crazy:
Here is an old story, notice how it says it would turn Iraq into a quagmire (it's already past that). They can't even do Iraq with it's broke down military. Imagine how it would look with a trained and prepared military that might even have backing from others. This whole story is a show to scare people mostly. They couldn't do it if they wanted
Why Syria is America's new targetIsrael's last strategic opponent can turn occupied Iraq into a quagmire
Andrew Green
Thursday April 17, 2003
The Guardian
America's sudden onslaught against Syria has taken the world by surprise. The White House is said to have blocked the Pentagon's preliminary planning for a military assault on the country, and earlier this week the prime minister assured the House of Commons that there were "no plans for an attack on Syria" - language eerily reminiscent of that used about Iraq last autumn. Something must lie behind all this.
The charges are hardly earth-shattering. Syria is accused of harbouring Iraqi fugitives. Possibly so. The Syrians opposed the invasion of Iraq. The Syrian authorities cannot prevent Iraqis getting across a 400-mile desert border. It would not be surprising if, rather than accept the humiliation of handing them over to the Americans, they ushered unexpected guests towards an aeroplane.
Second, the Americans allege that the Syrians have tested chemical weapons. Not a surprise. Several countries in the Middle East are believed to possess such a capability, including Algeria, Egypt, Iran and, notably, Israel. The case for invading Iraq turned on Saddam being a crazy dictator who might pass chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. It would be hard to describe Bashar al-Assad in such terms. If Syria has chemical weapons, it is for a good reason - as a second-strike capability against Israel. It is inconceivable that the Syrians would strike first, knowing the Israelis would immediately go for nuclear retaliation.
The third American allegation is an old chestnut - that Syria is a rogue state supporting terrorism. The Syrians have long given hospitality to the political wing of Palestinian rejectionist movements. They permit the Iranians to channel through Damascus airport the arms required by Hizbullah in south Lebanon. These are regarded as potential levers in negotiations with Israel for return of the occupied Golan Heights. They also give Syria some measure of influence over the Palestinian and Hizbullah resistance. This is tough diplomacy, Middle East style; it hardly amounts to being a rogue state.
(snip)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2C3604%2C938326%2C00.html